Leonardo da Vinci Saint John the Baptist 1513-16
Jennings
NOW – Scott Jennings on the Battle for House Speaker: 'Johnson's Done a Good Job, The President Trusts Him' | @ScottJenningsKY
Scott Jennings makes an important point: the longer Republicans fight over the speakership, the longer voters will have to wait for the MAGA agenda to… pic.twitter.com/RZJtB2q6hH
— Overton (@overton_news) December 30, 2024
Isolate
https://twitter.com/i/status/1873878819737837844
You can be a great person even if you’re not a great president.
• The Passing and Lessons of Jimmy Carter (Turley)
This morning, the nation is mourning the loss of one of the most genuinely decent men ever to sit in the Oval Office. Even for his critics, Jimmy Carter was a model of empathy and integrity as an American president. After his presidency, he proved an even greater role model, working tirelessly to help those without homes or hope. He gave us 100 years of a life committed to helping others and a lasting lesson on what it means to be truly a public servant. Both President Joe Biden and Donald Trump offered moving tributes to Carter. President Biden noted that Carter showed “what it means to live a life of meaning and purpose, a life of principle, faith and humility.” He added “Some look at Jimmy Carter and see a man of a bygone era with honesty and character. Faith and humility mattered, but I don’t believe it’s a bygone era,” Biden said. “We’d all do well to try to be more like Jimmy Carter.”
President Trump declared “The challenges Jimmy faced as president came at a pivotal time for our country and he did everything in his power to improve the lives of all Americans. For that, we all owe him a debt of gratitude.” Many were surprised when Biden took a jab at Trump after his comments. The media immediately saw the testimonial comments as an opportunity to get a dig on Trump and Biden seemed eager to oblige them. When a reporter asked Biden after his formal remarks what President-elect Trump should take from Carter’s legacy, Biden replied: “Decency, decency, decency. … Can you imagine Jimmy Carter walking by someone who needed something and just keep walking? Can you imagine Jimmy Carter referring to someone by the way they look or the way they talk?” It was a jarring disconnect from the moment of unity by both presidents.
It was also a curious choice of presidents for Biden to make the comparison. There is another thing that Carter would not do: pardon a family member in an influence-peddling scandal. Throughout his presidency, Carter was faced with allegations that Billy Carter took $200,000 from a Libyan dictator as a “loan” and only paid back $1000. There were also allegations of even more money derived from open influence peddling from foreign sources. Sound familiar? Indeed, Biden defenders immediately tried to use Carter to deflect criticism from the President by falsely claiming that he pardoned Billy. Grant Stern, an editor for the advocacy group Occupy Democrats, wrote: “Jimmy Carter pardoned his brother Billy Carter who took over $200,000 from Libya as its foreign agent. George H.W. Bush pardoned his son Neil Bush for his role in the S&L scandals of the 1980s. Nobody thinks those pardons defined either presidency. Joe Biden’s pardon of Hunter Biden won’t either.”
Neither of those pardons “defined either presidency” because neither pardons existed. (ABC The View co-host Ana Navarro even claimed various family pardons as including another president to defend the Hunter Biden pardon: “Woodrow Wilson pardoned his brother-in-law, Hunter deButts…But tell me again how Joe Biden ‘is setting precedent’?” Many immediately told her instead how Wilson did not have a brother-in-law named “Hunter deButts,” let alone pardon him). In reality, despite lingering questions and investigations, Carter refused to pardon his brother. Instead, he told the American people the truth:
“I am deeply concerned that Billy has received funds from Libya and that he may be under obligation to Libya. These facts will govern my relationship with Billy as long as I am president. Billy has had no influence on U.S. policy or actions concerning Libya in the past, and he will have no influence in the future.” Unlike Carter, President Biden lied repeatedly to the voters in denying that (1) Hunter had any dealings with the Chinese, (2) he ever met his son’s clients, (3) he knew of any of these dealings, and (4) he would ever pardon his son. He then pardoned Hunter for any and all crimes committed over the last decade, including potential crimes that many believe implicate the President himself in a multimillion dollar influence-peddling scheme.
The thinking is: Better Johnson than another battle like the one that made him speaker.
• Trump Endorses Mike Johnson For House Speaker (RT)
President-elect Donald Trump has endorsed House Speaker Mike Johnson for another term amid disagreements among Republicans over recent spending legislation. Trump expressed support for the candidacy on Monday on his Truth Social network, stating, “Speaker Mike Johnson is a good, hard working, religious man… Mike has my Complete & Total Endorsement.” Johnson responded by thanking Trump, saying “The American people demand and deserve that we waste no time. Let’s get to work!” The endorsement follows a contentious government funding debate that nearly led to a pre-Christmas shutdown. Johnson, who became Speaker last October, faced criticism from some Republicans for his handling of the bipartisan spending bill.
It failed to pass without significant Democratic support and did not include Trump’s provision to raise the debt limit. It also faced criticism from GOP members for not including significant spending cuts. Some more conservative lawmakers who were opposed to raising the government’s borrowing limit broke from Trump’s directive to back the plan. Meanwhile, Democrats argued that the new bill would fund significant tax cuts for the wealthy, disproportionately burdening working people. The House is scheduled to vote on the Speaker position on January 3. Johnson’s re-election requires near-unanimous support from the Republican majority. Congress cannot conduct any business, including certifying Trump’s electoral victory, until one is chosen. Some GOP members, including Representative Thomas Massie, have expressed reservations about Johnson’s leadership, particularly concerning fiscal policies.
“I’m not persuaded by the ‘hurry up and elect him so we can certify the election on J6’ argument,” Massie said last week in a post to X (formerly Twitter). “A weak legislative branch, beholden to the swamp, will not be able to achieve the mandate voters gave Trump and Congress in November,” he added. The Democrats lost control of the Senate during November elections, with the GOP winning 53 of the 100 seats. Maintaining control of both houses of the legislature will be crucial for crafting legislation aimed at delivering Trump’s agenda on much-debated issues, such as immigration and the economy. Since February 2022, the US Congress has approved more than $174 billion to prop up Ukraine in its ongoing military conflict with Russia. Johnson became Speaker last October, after a group of House Republicans ousted his predecessor Kevin McCarthy, ostensibly because he’d made a secret deal with the White House to send billions in additional aid to Ukraine.
In September, Johnson objected to Vladimir Zelensky’s visit to an ammunition factory in Pennsylvania, calling it “a clearly partisan campaign event” that amounted to “election interference.” He wrote a letter to Zelensky demanding the immediate firing of Ukraine’s ambassador to Washington, Oksana Markarova, for organizing the trip. In October Johnson told media he was increasingly against additional funding for Kiev and expressed hope it won’t be necessary if Trump wins the presidential election. “I don’t have an appetite for further Ukraine funding, and I hope it’s not necessary,” the Louisiana Republican told Punchbowl News. “If President Trump wins, I believe that he actually can bring that conflict to a close. I really do. I think he’ll call [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and tell him that this is enough.”
Pick your friends..
• Deep State Freezes Over: John Brennan Praises Trump Transition Team (ZH)
If you had Obama-era Deep State operatives praising the man who the establishment has demonized as a “threat to democracy” on your bingo card, come on down to claim your prize. In what is sure to raise eyebrows across the political world, former CIA director John Brennan issued rare kind words for President-Elect Donald Trump’s second transition team, saying it has thus far operated in “more serious and professional fashion than in 2016. “I know that there is engagement between the Biden Department of State and the incoming Trump team,” Brennan told MSNBC’s Alicia Menendez over the weekend. “You want to make sure that the incoming team has as much intelligence and analysis as possible that’s available so that when they take over on day one that they are fully informed about what the situation is,” the former CIA chief added.
“I do think that there are some people in the Trump administration who are coming in and really are trying to do everything they can to be as prepared as possible on January 20th,” Brennan told MSNBC on Saturday. “You have people like Marco Rubio who has been named to be the next secretary of state, who is well steeped in these issues and also takes them very seriously,” he concluded. Brennan’s praise follows a long history of sharp attacks on Trump, who he recently referred to as unqualified to be president, citing his temperate and what he views as a lack of support for Ukraine against its ongoing war with Russia. “According to me, he was not qualified at the time, and he is not qualified today. We could see in particular that he did not understand the importance of the United States’s relations with our foreign allies and partners. He has little recognition for the transatlantic relationship, for NATO,” Brennan told RTBF.
“And that would give Vladimir Putin the green light to try to almost swallow up Ukraine,” Brennan said. “And unfortunately, I think it will encourage Putin to look hungrily toward the rest of Europe.” In 2018, Trump spawned fury and cheers from critics and supporters alike when he revoked Brennan’s security clearance. Trump, in a statement at the time, tied his decision to revoke the security clearance to the Russia investigation, “There’s no silence. If anything, I’m giving him a bigger voice,” Trump told reporters at the time. “Many people don’t even know who he is, and now he has a bigger voice. And that’s OK with me because I like taking on voices like that.”
The then-president also noted that he had received a “tremendous response” for the move. “Security clearances are very important to me, very important,” he stated, adding that he “never respected”the former CIA head. Trump also said Brennan had “recently leveraged his status … to make a series of unfounded and outrageous allegations, wild outbursts on the internet and on television, about this administration.” In a separate statement, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said the decision was motivated by the “risk posed by [Brennan’s] erratic conduct and behavior.”
“..members of Congress are entitled to immunity under the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution, which shields lawmakers from criminal liability related to their legislative duties. Cheney’s sycophants are already signaling that is the route she will take..”
• Liz Cheney’s Pending Immunity Whiplash (Julie Kelly)
Few people worked harder over the past few years to put Donald Trump behind bars than Liz Cheney, the former (alleged) Republican congresswoman from Wyoming. Seeking revenge for Trump’s longtime criticism of her father’s “weapons of mass destruction” lie, Cheney sought to settle a family score by imprisoning Trump over the events of January 6. “No one is above the law!,” Cheney, in her grating sanctimonious style, frequently insists. Well, except for her. It now appears Cheney is preparing to fight any federal and/or congressional probe into her demonstrably corrupt role as vice chairman of the January 6 Select Committee. Text messages obtained by Representative Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga), chair of a House subcommittee looking into the J6 committee, prove that Cheney colluded behind the scenes with star witness Cassidy Hutchinson, who dramatically changed her testimony after connecting with Cheney.
The communications could represent witness tampering, subornation of perjury—every former White House official including the driver of the presidential vehicle on January 6 has refuted Hutchinson’s account of Trump’s behavior that day—and obstruction. Based on the results of his ongoing inquiry, Loudermilk determined that “numerous federal laws were likely broken by Liz Cheney” and called for the FBI to investigate her. Cheney immediately responded by playing the victim and, of course, by blaming Donald Trump. But the American people appear uninterested in Cheney’s excuses; a new Rasmussen poll shows strong public support, including three-quarters of Republicans, for an FBI investigation into the bitter and defeated nepobaby.
If Trump’s Department of Justice decides to proceed, Cheney undoubtedly will seek immunity protections in an attempt to keep records away from federal investigators; members of Congress are entitled to immunity under the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution, which shields lawmakers from criminal liability related to their legislative duties. Cheney’s sycophants are already signaling that is the route she will take. During recent interviews, Rep. Jamie Raskin, a close pal of Cheney’s and fellow “NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW” squawker, warned the clause can prevent the FBI from accessing her communications. Pressed by reporter Hugo Lowell during a recent podcast, Raskin pooh-poohed accusations that Cheney potentially broke the law. “That hardly is a crime in the United States,” Raskin said about Cheney’s secret collaboration with Hutchinson.
“In any event, she’s completely protected by the Speech and (sic) Debate Clause, which protects all of us in our legislative capacities both in terms of our direct legislative action and in doing the investigative research that needs to be done in order to legislate and to act as legislators in a comprehensive way.” Raskin said the same during a separate interview with CBS News. “They’ve been talking about going after Liz Cheney simply for doing her legislative work in a way that is completely covered by the Speech and (sic) Debate Clause. It is not a crime for someone to go out and find witnesses to a violent insurrection.” Now, that is really rich coming from Raskin and potentially from Cheney. As members of the J6 committee, both were instrumental in stripping privilege sought by Trump and his inner circle including his attorneys, which resulted in the production of presidential records to the Trump-hating partisans on the committee and testimony by White House officials who are usually protected by executive privilege.
But Cheney also urged the Supreme Court to act quickly in denying Donald Trump’s claims of presidential immunity from prosecution after Special Counsel Jack Smith indicted Trump in August 2023 on four counts for his alleged role in “conspiring” to overturn the results of the 2020 election, representing the first time in history a former president faced a criminal federal indictment. Despite the unprecedented nature of the question and troubling long term consequences for the country, Cheney acted as if the matter was a no brainer and accused anyone opposed as being, of course, a Kremlin stooge. A few days before the court held oral arguments in Trump v US, the landmark immunity case, Cheney published an op-ed in the New York Times urging justices to move with haste. “If delay prevents this Trump case from being tried this year, the public may never hear critical and historic (sic) evidence developed before the grand jury, and our system may never hold the man most responsible for Jan. 6 to account,” Cheney wrote on April 22, 2024.
She further lamented how Trump tried to “delay” proceedings before her House committee by seeking privilege protections in court. “I know how Mr. Trump’s delay tactics work. Our committee had to spend months litigating his privilege claims…before we could gain access to White House records.” (This is untrue since Joe Biden repeatedly and quickly denied Trump’s privilege requests and Judge Tanya Chutkan, who later presided over Smith’s J6 indictment, also expedited the matter ultimately forcing the national archives to turn over presidential material that usually takes years to litigate.) So, according to Cheney’s logic, any assertion of executive privilege—a legitimate legal argument with decades of recent case law behind it—represents a “delay tactic.” Should be fun to watch Cheney explain her hypocrisy once the privilege tables are turned.
“I think Trump will acknowledge that Russia has achieved what it wants to achieve”..
• Trump Beat Harris, Could Bolster Russia-US Ties and May Hasten NATO’s End (Sp.)
With time already ticking for US President-elect entering office, the world is faced with a whole array of developments, such as military conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, the rapid growth of BRICS and deep fissures within the Western bloc. The 2024 US presidential race came to a dramatic conclusion when Donald Trump convincingly upset Kamala Harris, a win that took place not least because Democrats “clearly had no policies that the American people wanted”, Michael Maloof, former senior security policy analyst in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, tells Sputnik. When it comes to Democrats’ pre-election efforts, they “always wanted to make this more of an anti-Trump campaign as opposed to coming up with policies that would remedy the higher inflation, the open borders” as well as “the increase in crime and drugs,” Maloof said.
Harris “just spoke in terms of platitudes” as she “sounded more like a cheerleader rather than someone wanting to be president with definitive policies; […] she had no answers for the increasing difficulties,” according to the pundit. T h e e x - P e n t a g o n a n a l y s t s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e r e w i l l b e m o r e o p p o r t u n i t y t o t r y t o r e s o l v e R u s s i a - U S p r o b l e m s t h a t w e r e i n p l a c e u n d e r t h e B i d e n - H a r r i s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n b e c a u s e T r u m p i s m o r e t h a n w i l l i n g t o m e e t w i t h M r . P u t i n , j u s t a s M r . P u t i n s a y s h e ’ s w i l l i n g t o m e e t T r u m p . Both are “very strong leaders” with “healthy respect” toward each other, and they would manage to reach “some accommodation” on pressing issues, especially on Ukraine. “I think Trump will acknowledge that Russia has achieved what it wants to achieve”, Maloof pointed out.
The pundit claimed that under Trump, “you’re going to see perhaps the demise of NATO altogether”. NATO’s four-year aid to Ukraine “actually crippled them [the alliance’s members] economically, and I think that this is the beginning of the end, not only of NATO as a so-called ‘defense’ alliance, but also the EU itself”, Maloof concluded.
Russia will not budge.
• Lavrov: Russia’s ‘Not Satisfied’ With Trump’s Ukraine Proposals (Antiwar)
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Sunday that Moscow was “not satisfied” with reported proposals being discussed by President-elect Donald Trump and his transition team to end the war in Ukraine. Recent media reports have said Trump’s team proposed the idea of Ukraine pledging not to join NATO for at least 20 years as part of a potential peace deal. Another report said Trump wants European troops to deploy to Ukraine to monitor a future ceasefire. “Judging by numerous leaks and Donald Trump’s own interview with Time magazine on December 12, he is talking about ‘freezing’ hostilities along the line of engagement and transferring further responsibility for confronting Russia to the Europeans,” Lavrov said, according to the Russian news agency TASS.
“We are certainly not satisfied with the proposals made by representatives of the president-elect’s team to postpone Ukraine’s membership in NATO for 20 years and to deploy a peacekeeping contingent of ‘UK and European forces’ in Ukraine,” Lavrov added. Trump campaigned on ending the proxy war in Ukraine, but it’s still unclear how he intends to do that. The Financial Times recently reported that Trump assured NATO countries that US military aid would continue to flow to Ukraine after his inauguration.
“In a boost for allies deeply concerned over their ability to support and protect Ukraine without Washington’s backing, Trump now intends to maintain US military supplies to Kyiv after his inauguration,” FT reported. Lavrov said that Russia has not received any official offers from the US and noted that official US policy is still being steered by the Biden administration. “Until January 20 — the date of inauguration — Donald Trump has the status of ‘president-elect,’ and all policy on all fronts is determined by the incumbent president and his administration,” he said.
Test case.
• Musk To Provide Cellphone Coverage To Ukraine From Space (RT)
Ukraine’s largest mobile operator, Kyivstar, has signed a contract with Elon Musk’s Starlink to introduce satellite-powered cellular service, Kyivstar’s parent company, VEON Group, stated on Monday. The service, set to launch in the fourth quarter of 2025, will initially support SMS and over-the-top (OTT) messaging before expanding to voice and data functionalities in later stages. VEON described the agreement as a “game-changing” development to bolster connectivity in Ukraine amid frequent blackouts caused by Russian airstrikes targeting Ukrainian energy infrastructure. The financial details of the agreement have not been made public. Ukraine will be among the first countries to adopt Starlink’s direct-to-cell services, according to Reuters. ”With access to Starlink direct-to-cell technology, Kyivstar customers will benefit from satellite-powered connectivity even when the terrestrial network is unable to service an area,” VEON Group stressed.
Starlink, which is a unit of SpaceX, put its first satellites enabling direct-to-cell service into orbit this January. Last month, the US Federal Communications Commission granted Musk’s firm approval to provide coverage to mobile phones in areas out of reach of land-based networks in partnership with T-Mobile. The government of Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky considered Musk among its backers early in the conflict with Russia, when SpaceX donated $80 million worth of Starlink satellite internet terminals to Ukraine. Kiev’s forces have relied heavily on the system for communications. However, the billionaire was involved in a spat with Ukrainian officials and social media users in October 2022 after he proposed a plan to settle the conflict. Musk suggested that Russia should “redo elections of annexed regions under UN supervision,” while Ukraine would commit to neutrality and drop its claim to Crimea.
Four former Ukrainian regions voted to join Russia in the fall of 2022, while Crimea held a similar referendum in 2014 after a Western-backed coup in Kiev. Zelensky reacted to the idea by launching a social media poll, asking followers “which Elon Musk” they “like more” – the one “who supports Ukraine” or the one “who supports Russia.” Additionally, Andrey Melnik, Ukraine’s former ambassador to Germany, went a step further by telling the billionaire to “f**k off.” A few days later, reports surfaced that the Ukrainian military began experiencing issues with Starlink services. Since then, Musk has repeatedly mocked Zelensky in his posts on X over the Ukrainian leader’s demands for more Western aid and for Kiev to be accepted into NATO. Earlier this year, SpaceX and Tesla CEO insisted that there is “no way in hell” that Russia will suffer defeat in its conflict with Ukraine.
He’s their ideal scapegoat.
• Can Elon Musk Actually ‘Influence’ The German Election? (RMX)
Following Elon Musk’s guest column in Welt am Sontag, there is a huge outpouring of anger from the establishment parties and press over his endorsement of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, including claims that Musk is participating in “election interference” and harming Germany democracy. However, can Musk actually shift the election result, and if the AfD scores a surprisingly good result, how will Germany’s power elite react? Just to get the first point out of the way, it is unlikely that Musk’s endorsement will move the needle all that much. Musk is already demonized across the EU for his takeover of X and shift towards supporting right-leaning candidates. In Germany, there is a constant stream of anti-Musk content produced on a daily basis. Musk writing an op-ed in Welt is hardly going to convince the majority of Germans, who likely already have an unfavorable opinion of Musk.
The AfD is already polling at 19 percent or so, and a poll in November set the party’s voter potential at 25 percent, which means there is a definite ceiling to the party’s support. Could Musk raise that ceiling? As Bild writes, Hermann Binkert from the opinion research institute INSA stated that “Elon Musk’s support for the AfD can help the party with a view to the federal election. Musk enjoys sympathy in Germany… A party that covers a broader spectrum increases its voter potential.” The Bild report also notes that in “In liberal-conservative circles, the successful entrepreneur’s praise could help to normalize the AfD as a party.” There may be some truth to this, but again, Musk’s endorsement can only go so far in Germany,. Musk also supports Donald Trump, but the vast majority of Germans still disapprove of Trump.
The outcome of the election will be made clear on Feb. 23, but if anything, the Christmas market attack in Magdeburg is more likely to shift more people towards the AfD than Musk’s opinion piece. On the high end of the scale, the AfD can expect a result in the range of 23 percent of the vote, but that would be a huge jump from where they currently stand. In all reality, the next upcoming government is likely to be CDU and the Greens or CDU and the SPD ruling once again, but a stronger AfD result could complicate any potential coalition agreement. SPD General Secretary Matthias Miersch told Handelsblatt: “The fact that the Springer publishing house is even offering Elon Musk an official platform to advertise for the AfD is shameful and dangerous.” He said the process shows “how far right-wing networks have now advanced.” Now, the Bavarian SPD parliamentary group has announced it will leave X.
There is plenty of outrage all around, with Teresa Stiens of Handelblatt writing that the Welt am Sonntag allowed itself to be “harnessed to the anti-democratic cart.” Former editor-in-chief of the ARD capital studio Ulrich Deppendorf wrote on X: “Musk’s appeal in the Welt am Sonntag is the low point in the long-standing history of the Springer publishing house.” Konstantin von Notz, the deputy parliamentary group leader of the Greens, wrote on X: “Offering a Western oligarch like Musk a platform to promote these enemies of democracy and those who despise the rule of law is simply an amnesia.” All of this is pretty amazing considering the actual Welt article actively attacks Musk and his AfD support — all in the same piece that Musk wrote! Has there ever been such a ridiculous “guest column” before where the author is attacked in his own piece?
The reality is that foreign billionaires have injected themselves into elections all over the world, and while George Soros remains the classic bogeyman of the right, there are good reasons why he has earned his reputation. Not only has he funded political campaigns, NGOs, and influence operations across the world, but he has also written opinion columns — far more aggressive ones — than Musk’s own guest column. In fact, Soros has even written for Welt, which nobody seemed to have any problem with. Soros has notably waged war against right-wing governments in a variety of op-eds, including this one targeting the Hungarian and Polish governments, and he has been doing all of this for decades. Despite all of his “election interference,” he is hailed as a hero, and more importantly a source of money, for the European establishment.
“The blob transformed the news into an engine for suppressing the facts or spinning them narratively when they could not be suppressed..”
• No, The Truth Is Not Just Another Story (Kunstler)
It must be obvious that the incoming government under Mr. Trump has one primary duty overall: sorting out truth from lies so the nation can reestablish a baseline reality to function upon. America is so punch-drunk from official lying that many intelligent people who ought to know better now proclaim that reality is unknowable, which is just a surrender to nihilism — the rejection of moral principle, a belief that the human project is meaningless. This awful condition has led to the point where you know for sure that “Joe Biden” cannot possibly discharge his duties as chief executive, and yet nobody cares enough to investigate who is running things behind the front he puts up. That would generally be the job of the news media, which is supposed to function as the public’s auditor. Now, of course, you are persuaded that this was never really their job, that it was a sham, but that is just another lie.
The news was not flawless, but neither was it presented as nothing more than opinion. The news existed to register what happened day-to-day. It was not so much concerned with why things happened, which was much more difficult to establish, and usually reserved for the pages labeled “opinion,” so that you knew it was somebody’s conjecture. I know this because I worked as a newspaper reporter in the 1970s. I actually found out what was going on about this-and-that, wrote it up, and saw it in print hours later. The facts. Journalism had some simple rules for reporting the facts about anything — and it’s hilarious that anyone thought it required a graduate degree from some credentialing mill like the Columbia U. School of Journalism.
The news was often meddled-with by interested parties, government and business, but they did not completely overwhelm the ant-like labors of x-thousands of reporters in the field, and the stream of fact they circulated. Not all of it was subject to dispute, meddling, or opinion because it was self-evident: Joe Blow got shot. . . a helicopter crashed in Ohio. . . a volcano erupted in Peru. . . . Only over time, the past thirty years especially, our government grew and grew and one of the things that grew out of it was the nefarious “blob” dedicated to protecting the self-enlarging perquisites and interests of that government. Blobs will absorb things they encounter, and in a predatory way, the US government blob absorbed the US news media. The blob transformed the news into an engine for suppressing the facts or spinning them narratively when they could not be suppressed, in order to maximize the advantage of the government and to protect the operations of the blob itself.
It is also a fact that this blob is aligned mostly with Democratic Party, because that party is most avid for the continuing growth of government, and its members overwhelmingly dominate in the officialdom that dwells inside the DC Beltway. The numbers speak for themselves on the DC voter rolls. So, a new government under Mr. Trump is feared cringingly by the news media. For one thing, the incoming government has tasked itself with reducing government substantially, eliminating many of its perquisites, and surgically excising the nefarious blob that is draining the purpose, meaning, and vitality out of our national life. The news media is terrified of being found-out for having acted as the blob’s chamberlain. We may find out exactly how that worked — how, for example, professional liars such as Joy Reid and Rachel Maddow of MSNBC were paid. What accounted for the amazing coordination of talking-points from day-to-day across all networks and newspapers?
We are about to find out how a whole lot of mystifying things have happened in recent years. For instance, those fantastic vote switcheroos in “Joe Biden’s” favor that occurred visibly right on TV in the wee hours of November 4, 2020? How did William Barr conceal the existence of Hunter Biden’s laptop from Mr. Trump’s defense attorneys in the 2019 impeachment over a phone call to Ukraine? Who really has been making “presidential” decisions behind the false front of “Joe Biden?” Who in White House news reporters’ pool among the Cable News networks, The New York Times, and The Washington Post happened to know which officials were running the White House operation (did they not have sources)?
How did the FBI engineer the Jan. 6, 2021, riot and with how many agents and operatives on-site? Who was in charge of the DNC pipe bomb caper? How has George and Alex Soros’s network of money-dispensing NGOs been allowed to buy law enforcement offices all over country? How did Merrick Garland’s errand boys get to New York Attorney General Letitia James and Fulton County DA Fani Willis? What has been done with the billions of dollars sent to Ukraine? Why is the CDC still advertising and promoting mRNA Covid vaccines that they must know have killed and disabled millions of people? Who thought it was a good idea to fill the ranks of the US military with transexuals? How did the order to throw the US-Mexican border wide open move through the chain-of-command, exactly? Things like that.
“..the Ukrainian leader “has genuinely pulled off one of the greatest money heists of all time.”
• Zelensky Is ‘All-time Champion’ of US-Aid Heist – Musk (RT)
Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has referred to Vladimir Zelensky as an “all-time champ” in a post on social platform X following US President Joe Biden’s announcement on Monday of a $2.5 billion US arms package for Kiev. Musk’s remark came in response to another X user’s comment saying that the Ukrainian leader “has genuinely pulled off one of the greatest money heists of all time.” President Biden’s latest military aid package for Ukraine includes advanced weaponry, ammunition, and armored vehicles, with a total value of $2.5 billion. Biden emphasized the need to support Ukraine in his final weeks in office, specifying that $1.25 billion of the package would be drawn from US stockpiles under the Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA).
Utah Senator Mike Lee referred to the package as “money laundering,” in another X post on Sunday. There have been bipartisan calls for audits that have questioned the transparency and accountability of the $175 billion in US assistance since the Ukraine conflict began. The Tesla and SpaceX CEO has repeatedly questioned the allocation and oversight of Western resources sent to Kiev. In March, Musk stated that Kiev should give Washington “proper accounting of how it is used and a plan to resolve the conflict.” He has also accused top US officials – most notably former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland, known for her leading role in the 2014 Maidan coup in Kiev – of “pushing this war.” While SpaceX has provided the Ukrainian military with Starlink internet terminals, Musk has long argued that Kiev cannot hope to defeat Russian forces on the battlefield and that the conflict must end in a negotiated settlement.
During the summer, Musk endorsed White House aspirant Donald Trump, who has vowed to bring a swift end to the fighting. After winning the presidential election Trump pitched Musk and fellow billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy to co-head the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a body that will be tasked with reducing government waste and streamlining the federal bureaucracy. The billionaire has also reportedly engaged in direct communications with Zelensky in a phone call between the Ukrainian leader and Trump in November. According to Axios’ sources, Musk promised to continue supporting Ukraine through his Starlink satellites. Last month, Musk mocked Zelensky’s “amazing” sense of humor after the Ukrainian leader claimed in a radio interview that his country is “independent” and cannot be forced to the negotiating table by the US.
Not so massive.
• Russia and Ukraine Conduct Massive POW Swap (RT)
Ukraine has freed 150 Russian soldiers from captivity as part of a major prisoner exchange, the Defense Ministry in Moscow said in a Telegram post on Monday. Kiev received an equal number of its troops as well, it added. The swap deal was mediated by the United Arab Emirates, the ministry stated. All of the freed Russian soldiers were initially transferred to Belarus, where they were provided with the necessary medical and psychological assistance and an opportunity to contact their relatives and loved ones, the statement said. The soldiers are now to be moved to Russia for further treatment and rehabilitation, the ministry added. It is the first such exchange since October, when the two sides exchanged 95 servicemen each. That swap deal was also mediated by the UAE. In November, Moscow and Kiev also exchanged the remains of fallen soldiers, with Ukraine receiving 563 bodies and Russia 37.
Later on Monday, Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky confirmed the exchange, but claimed that almost 200 Ukrainians had been returned. “The return of our people from Russian captivity is always very good news for each of us. And today is one of those days: our team managed to return 189 Ukrainians home,” he wrote on Telegram. Moscow had previously accused Kiev of being reluctant to take back its soldiers from custody. In early December, Russian human rights ombudsman Tatyana Moskalkova released a list of servicemen being held, whom she said the Ukrainian officials refused to consider for a prisoner exchange. “Zelensky does not need 630 Ukrainian citizens who were captured. He abandoned them,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova commented on the publication at that time.
In mid-December, the Prime Minister of Hungary Viktor Orban suggested mediating a major prisoner exchange between Moscow and Kiev that could involve some 700 soldiers from each side. He later stated that Ukraine had rejected his proposal. An aide to Vladimir Zelensky then called Orban “a meddlesome messenger” of Russian President Vladimir Putin, adding that “no one” who supposedly works for peace needs such people. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Russia was willing to accept Orban’s proposal and even contacted the Hungarian embassy with some relevant proposals of its own.
“The IMF has warned that seizing these assets without robust legal frameworks could erode global trust in the Western financial system.”
• Kiev Announces US Gift of $15bn From Seized Russian Funds (RT)
The US will provide Kiev with $15 billion, leveraging future revenues from frozen Russian central bank assets, Ukrainian Prime Minister Denis Shmigal announced on Monday. The Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov has previously said about Washington’s purported illegal transfer of Russian funds to Kiev that Moscow may challenge it in court. The American funding is part of a broader $20 billion contribution under the G7’s $50 billion loan framework to Ukraine. The agreement was signed by Ukraine’s Ministry of Finance and the World Bank under the PEACE in Ukraine initiative, Shmigal claimed, in a post on his Telegram channel. The G7, comprising the US, Canada, Japan, the UK, France, Germany, and Italy, initially pledged the $50 billion loan in June 2022, using profits from frozen Russian assets as collateral. Of the estimated $300 billion immobilized, $213 billion is held in the Brussels-based clearinghouse Euroclear.
Euroclear froze the assets of the Russian central bank in late February 2022, shortly after the EU imposed sanctions on Russia in response to the conflict escalation in Ukraine. The frozen funds have already generated billions in interest, with the clearinghouse transferring €1.55 billion ($1.63 billion) to Ukraine in July. Moscow has vehemently criticized the asset seizures. Last Wednesday Dmitry Peskov condemned the measures as theft and warned of legal retaliation. He was reacting to Shmigal’s announcement that the US had already transferred to Ukraine the first installment of the $1 billion from the frozen Moscow central bank funds. Last month, Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov said there are plans to mirror the West’s actions, using income from frozen Western assets in Russia.
“We have also frozen the resources of Western investors, Western financial market participants and companies. The income from these assets will also be used,” the official said. The decision to use frozen Russian assets has previously stirred debate among G7 nations. European members of the club such as Germany, France and Italy have raised concerns over financial market stability and about the legal implications of such actions. The IMF has warned that seizing these assets without robust legal frameworks could erode global trust in the Western financial system.
“Our Ukrainian partners should not overlook the fact that Russian gas distributed through their territory brings high and significant revenues to Ukraine, which it greatly needs..”
• Fico Dismisses ‘Nonsense’ Accusations From Zelensky (RT)
Bratislava has strongly dismissed accusations from Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky, who claimed that Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has opened a “second energy front” against Kiev and colluded with Moscow. The Slovak Foreign Ministry described the remarks as exaggerated and baseless. “We reject any nonsense about opening a second energy front, as baselessly fabricated” by Zelensky, as well as statements about “some invented alliance with [Russian President] Vladimir Putin,” the ministry stated on Sunday. The accusations were initially made by Zelensky in a post on X (formerly Twitter) on Saturday. He claimed Fico’s government was working to undermine Ukraine’s energy security “at the expense of the Slovak people’s interests.”
Fico had earlier warned that his country could cut electricity supplies to Ukraine if Kiev stops facilitating the transit of Russian gas across its territory to EU nations. Slovakia, whose economy heavily relies on Russian gas, receives its supplies through Ukraine via Soviet-era pipelines. Earlier this month, Ukrainian Prime Minister Denis Shmigal declared that from January 1, Kiev will cease transporting Russian gas and will exclusively utilize its pipeline system for delivering the fossil fuel from alternative suppliers. The existing contract with Moscow is set to expire on Tuesday and Ukraine has made it clear that it will not extend the agreement.
The Slovak Foreign Ministry emphasized on Sunday that Bratislava has prioritized energy cooperation with Kiev. “It was this current Slovak government that included the project to strengthen the connection of the energy transmission network as one of the priorities of the roadmap for Slovak-Ukrainian cooperation,” it stressed. The ministry noted that Slovak companies supply electricity to Ukraine on a commercial basis since they cannot be expected to finance the Ukrainian state. Additionally, it highlighted the humanitarian aid provided to Kiev since the escalation of its conflict with Moscow.
The Slovak ministry also pointed out Ukraine’s reliance on Russian gas transiting through its territory, which provides “significant income” for the government in Kiev. “Our Ukrainian partners should not overlook the fact that Russian gas distributed through their territory brings high and significant revenues to Ukraine, which it greatly needs,” the ministry stated. The ministry also criticized Zelensky’s alleged proposal during a European Council meeting to use Russian assets to “buy Slovakia’s consent” for Ukraine’s NATO membership, calling it “absurd” and warning against creating new conflicts. “We fully understand that Ukraine is exposed to a long-term war conflict but, precisely for this reason, they should not create new enemies and fabricate the emergence of some second front,” the statement added.
“The country is reliant on Russia for around 85% of its gas demand, primarily through pipelines transiting Ukraine..”
• Slovak PM Fico Slams ‘Irrational’ EU (RT)
Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has sent an open letter to European Council President Antonio Costa and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, urging immediate action to address Ukraine’s imminent halt of natural gas transit through its territory to the EU. A transit agreement between Russia and Ukraine is set to expire on December 31. Kiev has refused to extend it, citing the conflict with Moscow. In a letter posted on Facebook on Sunday, Fico accused Kiev of failing to consider the potential impact its decision will have on the EU economy. Brussels’ acceptance of the situation is “absolutely irrational and wrong,” he stressed. Gas transit through Ukraine accounts for only 3.5% of EU consumption, the letter states, citing an analysis carried out by Slovakia’s main gas supplier and trader, SPP. Despite the modest share, any halt would disrupt the market, raising gas prices by roughly 30%, the document claims.
Such a price spike would translate to an additional annual cost of € 40-50 billion for European households and infrastructure, Fico argued. “It is in the interest of all EU citizens that European efforts to support Ukraine should be carried out rationally, and not in the form of self-destructive and extremely damaging gestures,” the Slovak prime minister noted. Kiev’s decision will lead to “reciprocal measures,” he warned. Fico also said Russia “will easily place such a small volume of gas in other markets,” thus mitigating its losses. The situation requires urgent attention from EU institutions and member states to mitigate risks of supply shortages, he added.
Landlocked Slovakia’s position within Europe’s energy network makes it highly susceptible to disruptions in natural gas supply. The country is reliant on Russia for around 85% of its gas demand, primarily through pipelines transiting Ukraine. Fico has repeatedly voiced concerns regarding EU energy policy. He has consistently advocated for pragmatic approaches to energy security, often clashing with Brussels on its approach to the Ukraine conflict, namely the issue of military support to Kiev and the issue of economic sanctions against Russia. European Union leaders have repeatedly expressed confidence in the bloc’s ability to manage without Russian gas, accusing Moscow of using energy as a geopolitical weapon. The European Commission and Council have yet to issue formal responses to the Slovak leader’s letter.
Incidents in South Korea with planes the whole world uses, lead to inspections only in South Korea? Explain please.
• South Korea To Inspect Boeing Fleet After Plane Crash Disaster (RT)
South Korea’s Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport is set to conduct a special inspection of all Boeing 737-800 jets operated by the country’s air carriers, Yonhap news agency reported on Monday. Yesterday, a Jeju Air Boeing 737-800, which was carrying 181 people from Bangkok, belly-landed, skidded off the end of the runway, and exploded after slamming into a wall at Muan International Airport, some 290km southwest of Seoul. The cause of the tragedy that claimed the lives of 179 people is currently under investigation, with preliminary findings pointing to a landing gear malfunction. Two crew members survived and are being treated for injuries. Boeing 737-800s are mostly operated by low-cost domestic airlines. Jeju Air currently has 39 of the planes in its fleet, while 62 are operated by T’way Air, Jin Air, Eastar Jet, Air Incheon, and Korean Air.
On Monday, local media reported that another Boeing 737-800 operated by Jeju Air had returned to an airport in South Korea shortly after departure due to the same landing gear issue. Earlier, South Korea’s acting President Choi Sang-mok ordered an emergency safety inspection of the country’s entire airline operation system “to prevent recurrence of aircraft accidents.” “Even before the final results are out, we ask that officials transparently disclose the accident investigation process and promptly inform the bereaved families,” Choi said, explaining that the top priority was to identify the victims, support their families, and treat the two survivors. Local media outlets had previously reported that the authorities believed that the airliner had been hit by a flock of birds, which caused its landing gear to malfunction. However, aviation experts questioned this theory in an interview with Reuters.
“When I was young men were raised to respect women. When a woman entered a room, the men stood. Doors were opened for women and their entrance proceeded the man’s. Car doors were opened for women who were helped in and out. At the dining table men stood until the women were seated.”
• The Disappearance of the Male Role (Paul Craig Roberts)
Over the course of my lifetime I have watched the role of men taken away. The role of the male as provider, defender, and disciplinarian is no more. It was destroyed by feminists. To clarify “feminist”: In the past when I have criticized feminists older women who had careers asked why I thought women shouldn’t have careers. Their idea is that a feminist is a woman who has a career. But women have always had careers as mothers, homemakers, grandmothers, school teachers, nurses, secretaries, writers, artists, musicians, scientists, and even spies such as Eve Gordon who made during World War II 112 parachute jumps into occupied Europe. Even in pre-feminist days, one of my aunts despite being married had a career outside the home. She enjoyed the discipline of getting to work on time, the interaction with other people, and meeting new ones.
By feminist I mean a person with an ideological agenda of obliterating the difference between men and women. When I was young men were raised to respect women. When a woman entered a room, the men stood. Doors were opened for women and their entrance proceeded the man’s. Car doors were opened for women who were helped in and out. At the dining table men stood until the women were seated. In those days men still wore hats. A gentleman passing a lady on the sidewalk was expected to tip his hat in respect. A man who struck a woman or used a four-letter word in a lady’s presence suffered a ruined reputation. Feminists derided the many ways in which respect was shown to women as “placing women on a pedestal.” Showing respect for women was somehow undervaluing them and treating them unequally. Feminists insisted on women being pulled down into the gutter with men.
Big brothers were taught to protect little sisters. It was little brother’s job to learn to protect himself, and fights on the school playground was part of the learning process. Today men are no longer taught to protect women. But it is a natural inclination in men. Studies have concluded that the introduction of women soldiers into conflict causes a loss of cohesion and focus, because men become distracted by concern for the women. Feminists were not happy until they destroyed men’s colleges, male leadership in politics, military, and business, men’s clubs and male organizations such as the Boy Scouts which was forced to take in girls. Even the military has been taken from men. How is there a band of brothers when the commander is female? Men have lost their role. They are no longer the provider. The wife might have, thanks to gender preferences in university admissions, employment, and promotion, the better job bringing in more income.
Studies conclude that boys suffer depression from loss of a role. Reportedly, the suicide rate of boys and young men has been rising. What the feminists have established is a new form of male deference to women. Males must stand aside and give up their role to women. Feminist were not content to only destroy men. They destroyed women also. The idea of a chaste woman was objectionable because it held women to a higher standard than men. Helen Gurley Brown, editor-in-chief of Cosmopolitan magazine, used the magazine to encourage women to be harlots. In the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s Cosmopolitan was a fixture in the waiting rooms of doctors and dentists. I often wondered what my mother and grandmothers would have thought of a woman’s magazine, the cover of which heralded articles titled “How to be unfaithful to your husband without being caught,” “how to find a sex partner when on vacation without your boy friend,” “how to manage multiple sex partners.”
Today young women support themselves with their porn sites. Women brag on social media about having had 150 sexual partners, sparking rivals to vow attaining higher levels of wantonness. Female school teachers get themselves pregnant by their under age students. Mothers have 12-year old daughters on birth control pills. School children are sexualized at an early age to get them ready for the legalization of pedophiles, now euphemized as “minor attracted persons.” I often refer to the United States as a Sodom and Gomorrah Tower of Babel, which is what we have become. It will be a big chore for Trump to rescue us from this predicament.
Shell
Box turtles are so-called because they can completely close up their shell, much like a box.
There is a 'hinge' located on the plastron, or the lower part of the shell, that allows for total closure
— Science girl (@gunsnrosesgirl3) December 30, 2024
2025
https://twitter.com/i/status/1873559764841742642
Rabbit
https://twitter.com/i/status/1873750783319285941
Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.
